| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187468
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
056506
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
146219
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Bloomsbury Publishing India Pvt Ltd, 2015.
|
| Description |
xiii, 242p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9789385436840
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 058739 | 954.9045/GOK 058739 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
113862
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For 74 days in mid-1999, India waged an intense war against intruding Pakistani forces on the Indian side of the Line of Control dividing Kashmir in the Himalayas. The Indian Air Force (IAF) was a key contributor to India's eventual victory in that war. Among other things, the IAF's combat performance showed how the skillful application of air-delivered firepower, especially if unmatched by the other side, can shorten and facilitate the outcome of an engagement that might otherwise have persisted indefinitely. It also showed that a favorable position in the conventional balance remains strategically useful even in conditions of mutual nuclear deterrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
119340
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
110612
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
106453
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that most analyses of the Kargil conflict concede the important role played by the United States in understanding how India regained control of the Kargil heights, but fail to explain how India's intra-war compellent threat forced Washington to bring irresistible pressure to bear on Islamabad. The Indian decision to threaten asymmetrical escalation was the result of domestic pressures and military difficulties facing the Vajpayee-led caretaker government. The article shows that Washington pursued an "impartially" interventionist strategy until it came under Indian pressure to forsake its "balanced" approach towards ending the conflict. The article also shows how the "asymmetry of motivation" between New Delhi and Washington was an important factor in terminating hostilities in India's favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
128130
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the wake of the Kargil War, India developed a limited war doctrine. The key elements of this doctrine are that is a proactive and offensive. It is proactive in the sense that while being strategically reactive, for instance to terror provocation emanating from Pakistan, it is proactive at the operational level in choosing the time and place of conventional response and shaping of the battle. It is offensive in terms of its intent of taking the battle to the enemy, fighting on and making gains on enemy territory and its aim plus of punishing the Pakistan military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
019361
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
June 2001.
|
| Description |
22-26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
093144
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
047431
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Penguin Books, 2000.
|
| Description |
231p.
|
| Standard Number |
0140295925
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 043206 | 355.0209546/CHO 043206 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
089736
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Kargil war was a warning which we have ignored. The national introspection that followed, gave us the opportunity to overhaul our entire security apparatus, plug the many loopholes, improve internal security, tighten up border and coastal management and modernize our military. But political indifference, diplomatic inefficiancy, bureaucratic apathy and military disinterest have brought the country to a situation where its options are being continously reduced by other players in the international game of geo-politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
102203
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
169079
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Prabhat Prakashan, 2017.
|
| Description |
352p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9789350484258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059752 | 923.5/SIN 059752 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
169479
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Kargil War of 1999 focussed the nation’s attention on shortcomings in India’s national security management system, which was largely inherited from the British in 1947. A comprehensive review resulted in a major overhaul, ensuring tighter coordination between the various security structures, reforming the higher defence organisation, and bringing in a holistic approach, recognising the political, economic, technological, ecological and sociological factors impacting on national security. A set of reviews in 2017-18 resulted in further structural reform, taking cognizance of the global geopolitical flux, a revolution in the nature of military conflict, the transformative role of technology in every aspect of internal and external security, and the challenges arising from India’s strategic ambitions. The reformed and new structures emerging from these reviews are still a work in progress. Their functioning as a smooth, well-oiled national security machinery would require a coordinated, all-of-government approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
151423
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How do countries transition from single service to joint operations? This article engages with the discussion on military innovation to argue that civil–military relations are the most important driver for jointness. In doing so it examines jointness in the Indian military. Relying on archival research and primary interviews this article sheds new light on the operations of the Indian Peacekeeping Forces (IPKF) in Sri Lanka from 1987–1990, the 1999 Kargil War and the Post-Kargil defence reforms. The main argument is that the Indian military’s transition to jointness has been ‘incomplete’ primarily because of its prevailing model of civil-military relations. This model prevents civilians from interfering in the operational issues of the military, including on matters pertaining to jointness. It therefore recommends more forceful civilian intervention to overcome the prevailing single service approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
097622
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
080214
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Karachi, Oxford University Press, 2007.
|
| Description |
viii, 354p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9780195473544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:2/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 053043 | 954.91/KHA 053043 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 055149 | 954.91/KHA 055149 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
023454
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Nov 2003.
|
| Description |
53-81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
113071
|
|
|